Tiger Wants to Ban the Long Putter

[jamo]

Majors winners - 3 out of 16 (18.75%) not exactly a large proportion

I'm sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything as far as this thread goes, but there's no reason to go back 16 majors. Belly and long putters were available before then, well before then. Why not say "4 of the last 1000 major winners were using belly putter?" That's much more convincing. Or you could say "3 of the last 5." But you wouldn't do that, because that's 60% and would destroy your argument. Which is....what, again? What side am I even arguing now? [quote name="Jimmy3putts" url="/t/55561/tiger-wants-to-ban-the-long-putter/660_30#post_758693"]Adam Scott - blew The Open on the 16th with a 2 footer using a "long putter" which is where the advantage is supposed to be. [/quote] Again, an anecdotal example doesn't prove anything. I've missed putts shorter than the on Adam Scott missed on 16, and I use a regular putter. Pros with short putters have missed putts shorter than the one he missed. [quote name="Jimmy3putts" url="/t/55561/tiger-wants-to-ban-the-long-putter/660_30#post_758693"]Garrigus - was 1st on tour in putting inside 6 feet using the wee Scotty before the switch and now nowhere near using the long putter. The stats are on PGAtour.com[/quote] So? Setting aside the fact that no one is arguing that it's an advantage therefore it should be banned, people switch putters all the time. Adam Scott, to use someone you're familiar with, was first in the fancy MIT putts gained stat back in 2004, with a short putter! Yet he switched to a long putter eventually, and hasn't regained that standing.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by jamo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Majors winners - 3 out of 16 (18.75%) not exactly a large proportion

I'm sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything as far as this thread goes, but there's no reason to go back 16 majors. Belly and long putters were available before then, well before then. Why not say "4 of the last 1000 major winners were using belly putter?" That's much more convincing.

Or you could say "3 of the last 5." But you wouldn't do that, because that's 60% and would destroy your argument. Which is....what, again?

What side am I even arguing now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Adam Scott - blew The Open on the 16th with a 2 footer using a "long putter" which is where the advantage is supposed to be.

Again, an anecdotal example doesn't prove anything. I've missed putts shorter than the on Adam Scott missed on 16, and I use a regular putter. Pros with short putters have missed putts shorter than the one he missed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Garrigus - was 1st on tour in putting inside 6 feet using the wee Scotty before the switch and now nowhere near using the long putter. The stats are on PGAtour.com

So? Setting aside the fact that no one is arguing that it's an advantage therefore it should be banned, people switch putters all the time. Adam Scott, to use someone you're familiar with, was first in the fancy MIT putts gained stat back in 2004, with a short putter! Yet he switched to a long putter eventually, and hasn't regained that standing.

It's cyclical. How many guys were using putters with superfat grips > 2 years ago? I can't say how many over the last 250 years of majors (1000 majors) but, I'm pretty sure it was close to zero. Are we still waiting for our first oversized grip major winner?

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by jamo

I'm sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything as far as this thread goes, but there's no reason to go back 16 majors. Belly and long putters were available before then, well before then. Why not say "4 of the last 1000 major winners were using belly putter?" That's much more convincing.

Or you could say "3 of the last 5." But you wouldn't do that, because that's 60% and would destroy your argument. Which is....what, again?.

I would disagree with your assessment that there is no reason to go back 16 majors or that his argument is destroyed.   Your own statement is that long and belly putters are not a new phenomenon, which goes to prove his point that they are not the advantage some (though not necessarily in this thread) have said.   Thus, his argument is not destroyed at all but rather strenghtened by your own statement.

[Jimmy3putts]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Yeah.  The only problem is that almost no one is basing their opposition to the long and belly putters on them being an advantage.  Most people base their opposition on the notion that allowing any anchored stroke is inappropriate.  So you are essentially arguing against a straw man.  It is much easier to win an argument against a straw man than it is to win against the actual arguments your opponents are making.  So you win the straw man argument and are a non-starter in the real argument.

Wow, you must be a lawyer. Only they could come with a whole bunch of words that mean nothing.

If there was no perception of long/belly putters being an advantage then there would be on move to ban them.

[Texian]

They are an advantage. Anyone saying they are not is not looking objectively at what it takes to roll a ball into a hole or close to it most effectively..

However, just because they are an advantage is not a reason to ban them.

Neither is the fact that the stroke doesn't look "traditional," or "in the spirit," or whatever. If that was an issue they would have banned Miller Barber when he played and Jim Furyk today.

They did change the rule because Sam Snead putted between his legs, croquet style. So then he putted sidesaddle, which is also a superior way to roll a ball into a hole or close to it.

To those who want to ban long putters and/or the way they are being used today, just get over it and get one.

[drillers80]

Shank-proof irons are also not an advantage- unless you're prone to shanking. The long putter is only an advantage if you have trouble with the "traditional" method of putting. And that's the point. There should be a uniform requirement for what's entailed in putting. At minimum you should absolutely not be allowed to anchor the putter to your body. If you can putt with a long putter without doing that then more power to you.

[Jimmy3putts]

Originally Posted by drillers80

Shank-proof irons are also not an advantage- unless you're prone to shanking. The long putter is only an advantage if you have trouble with the "traditional" method of putting. And that's the point. There should be a uniform requirement for what's entailed in putting. At minimum you should absolutely not be allowed to anchor the putter to your body. If you can putt with a long putter without doing that then more power to you.

Where can I get a set of these irons?

What if you hold the top end in your hand and rest the hand/wrist against the body, as some do now. Would that be ok in your book?

[dave67az]

From what I understand (having not used one, other than playing around in my local golf shop) isn't the only real advantage to the long putter realized under stress?  I can't remember who said it, but many golfers even on the PGA Tour get the "jitters" when standing over high-stress putts.  This sometimes leads to more involuntary muscle "twitches" during the swing, and it's those little twitches that an anchored putter helps to eliminate.

I'm not a pro (I'm barely an amateur) but my heart often races when I'm standing over a critical putt and sometimes my knees quiver, so I step back, recompose, deep breath, and readdress.  I'm betting I'd benefit from an anchored putter.  But since a big part of the game (for me, at least) is learning to master control over those little bugs, it seems to me that using a device to do so goes against the spirit of the game.  I equate it to using a brace on my left elbow to make sure it stays straight (which I don't do, because the USGA says I can't use devices to aid my stroke).

If golfers get the "yips" and if that's why they need the long putters, then as far as I'm concerned it's an artificial device (extended shaft) that assists him in making a stroke.  It's my interpretation, and it may not be a majority one, but I couldn't use one in good conscience any more than I could not penalize myself for grounding the club in a bunker if I knew I did it.

Just my two cents.

- Dave

[Bayou Boogie]

Would it be correct that if the ruling bodies banned this stroke now, after it has been used for over 20 years, and for many golfers amateur and touring pros alike is

the only way they have putted, be a precedent of huge magnitude? Give me an example in golf of any rule banning something that has that much sanctioned use

behind it. I watched as Gary Williams, Lanny Wadkins, and Charlie Rhymer predicted it would not be banned (on Morning Drive) and I also predict the same

outcome.

[Jimdangles]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

I would disagree with your assessment that there is no reason to go back 16 majors or that his argument is destroyed.   Your own statement is that long and belly putters are not a new phenomenon, which goes to prove his point that they are not the advantage some (though not necessarily in this thread) have said.   Thus, his argument is not destroyed at all but rather strenghtened by your own statement.

Hes basically saying that you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to say. His argument does kind of collapse itself but the idea was dead on. You can make the numbers say whatever you want. Every major winner in the last year has used a long putter besides mccilroy and he makes up for it with striking the ball so well.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Bayou Boogie

Give me an example in golf of any rule banning something that has that much sanctioned use

behind it.

Square grooves?

[Bayou Boogie]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Square grooves?

From the looks of all these pros not being able to control the enormous amount of backspin on their shots hitting the green, they haven't missed a beat

since then. A little tweaking of the ball's outer layer countered that. Its also something that really was only felt by very good golfers.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Bayou Boogie

From the looks of all these pros not being able to control the enormous amount of backspin on their shots hitting the green, they haven't missed a beat

since then. A little tweaking of the ball's outer layer countered that. Its also something that really was only felt by very good golfers.

Uh, and yet, he gave you the exact best answer. Now you're goalpost shifting.

Who is to say the pros will "miss a beat"? Webb Simpson doesn't plan on it. He's practicing in his spare time with his short putter.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Bayou Boogie

From the looks of all these pros not being able to control the enormous amount of backspin on their shots hitting the green, they haven't missed a beat

since then. A little tweaking of the ball's outer layer countered that. Its also something that really was only felt by very good golfers.

That only happens when they are in the fairway or have a good lie in the rough.  Eliminating the square grooves was done to make it harder to get spin out of bad lies in the rough.  For that, I think it worked, although the effect was not huge.

How long were concave faces allowed before they were banned?

How long was it legal to carry an unlimited number of clubs before it was limited to 14?

How long was croquet putting legal (can't imagine that Snead was the first to do it, although it clearly was banned because of him) before it was banned?

[drillers80]

Originally Posted by Jimmy3putts

Where can I get a set of these irons?

What if you hold the top end in your hand and rest the hand/wrist against the body, as some do now. Would that be ok in your book?

You, my friend, are in luck: http://www.ebay.com/itm/JERRY-BARBER-GOLDEN-TOUCH-3-PW-IRONS-SET-900-/360480346468?pt=Golf_Clubs&hash;=item53ee4d9164#ht_500wt_1203

Interesting story behind their invention here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat;=19801014&id;=eftUAAAAIBAJ&sjid;=cZIDAAAAIBAJ&pg;=2086,6979362

I'd need to think this through as far as your putting question (as though what I say matters- but you did ask so...). In general, having started playing in the 70's with dead balls, blades and persimmon woods, I tend to really dislike anything that has robbed the game of its difficulty. I do not like that it's easier to hit the ball further. I do not like super forgiving clubs. So I'm a bit of an old school type and I think one should have to work really hard to play this game well. If a player has a weakness, it should be through work, rather than technology that the weakness is overcome.

[Jimmy3putts]

What about Bill Haas? Seems to have gone back to a standard length putter. It's all about what suits you and we don't need regulation on that thanks. We need the men in suits to look at stupid rules like touching a blade of grass in a hazzrad on the back swing, picking and dropping from a fairway divot that was not replaced.........

[broomhandle]

Originally Posted by turtleback

How long were concave faces allowed before they were banned?

How long was it legal to carry an unlimited number of clubs before it was limited to 14?

How long was croquet putting legal (can't imagine that Snead was the first to do it, although it clearly was banned because of him) before it was banned?

Those were all issues that were never officially scrutinized until a certain point then explicitly ruled on.

Find a case like the long putter where something WAS looked at and very explicitly left legal for 20 years before being flip-flopped(potentially).

Clubs were first limited to 16 then 14 later but that's a fine-tuning progression in the same direction.

The authorities -decided- to regulate square grooves but lost in legal and economic battles for a while. As far as I know the attitude and intention NEVER really flip-flopped.

They might write this new putting technique rule in a way that bans sidesaddle 50? years after it was left legal.

The occasional amateur and journeyman pro has putted split handed for at least 100 years and that could get screwed with.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by broomhandle

Find a case like the long putter where something WAS looked at and very explicitly left legal for 20 years before being flip-flopped(potentially).

Grooves. The whole PING case kinda defines "was looked at and very explicitly left legal" don't you think?

And why do you think the long putter WAS looked at and very explicitly left legal? I don't see that as being the case at all. It's kind of snuck up on people.

And who cares if a rule is changed after 20 or 50 or 100 years? Rules change in every sport over time. We had stymies and putting with the flagstick in and all sorts of things in golf.